Metódy organizácie
poznania:
klasifikácia, taxonómia,
systematizácia,
typologizácia“
„
Vladimír Marko
05.06.2014
analytické metódy v spoločensko-humanitných disciplínach
analytical methods in social sciences and humanities
APVV-0149-12 · www.amesh.sk
Classification
Hull 1998: "Any set of entities can be classified in indefinitely many ways. Books
can be classified according to author, title, subject matter, and so on”
Hull, ibid. “The ultimate goal for scientific classifications is to group entities
so that these classes function in, or facilitate the formation of, scientific laws.
Aristotle divided motion into super- and sub-lunar as well as forced and natural.
The primary justification of his classification was the system of laws that he was
able to generate using it. When Newton introduced his quite different system,
his classification replaced Aristotle’s because Newton’s system of laws was
more powerful, accurate and inclusive. In general, systems of scientific
classification are intimately connected to scientific theories and cannot be
evaluated independently of them. Different sorts of theories require different
classifications One major difference is between structural and historical
classifications. ”
2
Classification
Bailey, 1994: “classification is the general process of grouping entities by
similarity;”
Ibid.: “In its simplest form, classification is merely defined as the ordering of
entities into groups or classes on the basis of their similarity... This means that
we arrange a set of entities into groups, so that each group is as different as
possible from all other groups, but each group is internally as homogeneous as
possible... classification is both a process and an end result.”
Classification can either be
unidimensional, being based solely on a single dimension or
characteristic or
multidimensional, being based on a number of dimensions.
Structural – Mendeleyev periodic table
historical – evolution tree; classification of languages
3
Typology
conceptually separates a given set of items multidimensionally
dimensions are based on the notion of an ideal type (a mental construct that deliberately
accentuates certain characteristics and not necessarily something that is found in empirical
reality) (Weber, 1949)
its dimensions represent concepts rather than empirical cases
typologies create useful heuristics, provide a systematic basis for comparison
Hempel / Oppenheim (1936): a fixed number of properties that forms propriety space;
Lazarsfeld (1962) “In a formal sense these are all variates but they can be of considerable
diversity: quantitative variables such as age, ranks such as position in a competitive examination,
dichotomies such as sex, or even unordered classes such as country of birth. These variates form
a property space, and their combinations are what today we call a Cartesian product. Typologies,
Hempel and Oppenheim pointed out, are selected sectors of this property space which come
about by a variety of procedures they called reduction.”
Their central drawbacks are categories that are neither exhaustive nor mutually exclusive
Adams, 1991 - a collection of entities is sorted into types in such a way that each entity can be
a member of one and only one type.
often based on arbitrary or ad hoc criteria
descriptive rather than explanatory or predictive
frequently subject to the problem of reification (Bailey, 1994)
4
Definition – Division – Classification
Cohen & Nagel, p. 241
Division is therefore related to definition, because it
marks off the limits of the extension of a class
denoted by a term.
If, however, division is looked at from the point of
view not of its constituent species, but of its
individual members, the process is allied to
classification.
While division breaks up a genus into species,
classification is the grouping of individuals into
classes, and these classes into wider ones.
5
Typology - Classification?
Cohen & Nagel, p. 224
Thus suppose we wish to classify the population of the United States on the
bases of sex, of being over thirty years of age, and of being in good or
exceptional health. Let 1 represent, as usual, the universe of discourse; a those
of male sex, a' those of female sex; b those over thirty, b' those thirty or under
thirty; c those in good or exceptional health, c' those in poor health. Then the
population of the United States is divided into eight groups as follows:
1 = (a + a') = (a + a') (b + b') = (a + a') (b + b') (c + c') = abc + abc' + ab‘c + ab‘c'
+ a'bc + a'be' + a'b'e + a'b'c'
The symbol abc will then represent the males over thirty and in good health;
a'bc' will represent the females over thirty who are in poor health, and so on.
Set of previous conditions:
exhaustive & mutually exclusive
each entity can be a member of one and only one type
concepts rather than empirical cases
useful heuristics, provide a systematic basis for comparison
+
+
+
+
6
Adams & Adams, Archaeological typology and practical reality, 1991:
Type concept. A type concept is the purely mental aspect of "typehood." It is a body of ideas
about the nature and characteristics of a group of entities which make it possible for us to think of
them in a collective way and under a collective label. In archaeology the type concept will nearly
always involve two components: a mental picture of what the type members will look like (type
identity), and ideas about where the members are likely to be found, what function they may have
performed, and other associations and inferences (type meaning).
Type description. If a type concept is to be shared between two or more individuals, it must first be
communicated in the form of a type description. This is a verbal and/or pictorial representation of
the type concept which depicts as many of its known characteristics as possible.
Type definition. Every type necessarily has a diagnostic attribute or diagnostic attribute cluster;
that is, a recognizable quality or qualities that set it apart from all other types. We therefore say
that every type is theoretically capable of having a type definition: a statement or depiction of its
diagnostic features which is sufficient to distinguish it verbally and/or pictorially from all
other types.
Type category. According to our usage, every type is by definition a sorting category: that is, it is a
theoretical "pigeonhole" into which entities (type members) can be placed in order to
differentiate them in some meaningful way from other entities which are members of other
types.
Type members. A type member is an entity that has been identified as exemplifying the
characteristics of a particular type, and has therefore been put into that type category.
Different specifications of classification and typology - Adams, Classification and Typology:
“Archaeologists often use the terms classification and typology interchangeably, but in
this article a distinction will be made. A classification is any set of formal categories into which
a particular field of data is partitioned. In contrast, a typology is a particular type of rigorous
classification in which a field of data is divided up into categories that are all defined according
to the same set of criteria, and that are mutually exclusive. As will be shown, most
archaeological classifications of artifacts are typologies, while most classifications of
cultures are not.”
7
Taxonomy
Taxonomies differ from typologies in that they classify items on the basis of
empirically observable and measurable characteristics (Bailey, 1994, p. 6).
Although associated more with the biological than the social sciences (Sokal &
Sneath, 1964), taxonomic methods–essentially a family of methods generically
referred to as cluster analysis–are usefully employed in numerous disciplines that
face the need for classification schemes (Lorr, 1983; Mezzich & Solomon, 1980).
According to Mayr (1969, 2), “[t]axonomy is the theory and practice of classifying
organisms.”
"Purist definition of a taxonomy – terms have parent/child relationship." (Earley,
2005).
"A taxonomy is not simply a neutral structure for categorizing specimens. It implicitly
embodies a theory of the universe from which those specimens are drawn "
Landweh et al. (1994).
"Taxonomy (the science of classification) is often undervalued as a glorified form of
filing—with each species in its prescribed place in an album; but taxonomy is a
fundamental and dynamic science, dedicated to exploring the causes of
relationships and similarities among organisms. Classifications are theories
about the basis of natural order, not dull catalogues compiled only to avoid chaos."
(Gould, 1989, p.98)
8
Taxonomy
Taxonomy is often employed synonymously with systematics (and/or
classification):
Mayr 1942/1982: 6n.1: "The terms systematics and taxonomy are
considered by me as approximately synonymous%[; i]n America%[,] the
term taxonomy seems to be preferred%[; i]n the rest of the world%[,] the
term systematics seems to be more widely used„
Classification / Typology / Taxonomy ?
Bailey, 1994, p.4: „Typology is another term for a classification...“
Adams, 1991, 296-7: “Some participants in the Typological Debate prefer to talk
about classification (Linton 1936: 382-400; Rouse 1960; Dunnell 1986), some
about typology (Krieger 1944; 1960; J. A. Ford 1954b; Kluckhohn 1960), and
some about taxonomy (Brew 1946: 44-66), but to a large extent these terms
have been used interchangeably.”
9
Systematics
Simpson (1961, p. 7): Systematics is "the scientific study of the kinds and diversity of organisms and of any and
all relationships among them.“
The majority view is that "systematics" is the more general term, being defined as the study of organismal
diversity, whereas "taxonomy" is more narrowly the set of procedures and rules for naming entities (taxa) and
producing "classifications" (ordering and/or nesting of taxa)." (Mishler, 2006)
Biological systematics does not provide methods for constructing classifications (that is the job of biological
taxonomy); instead it studies how organisms and taxa are related in the natural world. Nevertheless, many
biologists and philosophers hold that the results of biological systematics – what it says about the relations among
organisms and taxa – should influence the principles one adopts in a school of taxonomy.
Classification, however, is only one aspect of the much larger field of phylogenetic systematics.
Systematics is an attempt to understand the evolutionary interrelationships of living things, trying to
interpret the way in which life has diversified and changed over time. While classification is primarily the creation of
names for groups, systematics goes beyond this to elucidate new theories of the mechanisms of evolution.
Systematics (i.e. model), is the study of the pattern of relationships among taxa; it is no less than
understanding the history of all life. But history is not something we can see. It has happened once and leaves
only clues as to the actual events. Biologists in general and systematists in particular use these clues to build
hypotheses or models of the history. Only with a hypothesis of history can we truly discuss evolution.
10
Vocabulary of biological classification
phenetics, i.e. looking for similarities and differences to create systematics. Not only
gross morphology was used to find characters, but anatomy, chromosomes, pollen,
biochemistry and eventually proteins.
phylogeny, the history of the evolution of a species or group, especially in reference
to lines of descent and relationships among broad groups
11
Vocabulary of biological classification: cladogenesis - anagenesis
“evolutionary taxonomists . . . aim to construct classifications that reflect both of the
two major evolutionary processes, branching and divergence (cladogenesis and
anagenesis)” (Mayr (1981[1994], 290).
cladogenesis
A population of species A becomes
geographically isolated from the rest of the
species. It undergoes a genetic revolution and
becomes a distinct species, B.
In cladogenesis, a species are split in two.
anagenesis
Species A gradually evolves until it becomes
a new species, B.
Evolutionary taxonomists accepts both
(Cladists ignores anagenesis divergence)
12
Vocabulary - Homoplasy vs. homology
Homoplasy occurs when characters are similar, but are not derived from a common ancestor.
Homology is any similarity between characters that is due to their shared ancestry.
13
Vocabulary of biological classification
monophyletic taxa
The taxon consisting of D, E, and B
is a monophyletic taxon; so is the
taxon containing H, I, and G, and the
taxon containing H, I, G, F, and C.
Each contains an ancestor and all of
its descendants.
One single ancestor (the rule of
monophyly)
paraphyletic taxa
The taxon Reptilia contains lizards,
snakes, and crocodiles, but does not
contain birds. Reptilia is a
paraphyletic taxon.
it contains an ancestor and some
but not all of its descendants.
polyphyletic taxa
The taxon containing only E and G
is polyphyletic.
E and G share similar traits
(homoplasies) that were not present
in their common ancestor, A, but
evolved independently in E and G.
Monophyletic and paraphyletic taxa contain organisms that have homologies: traits shared by different lineages that
were passed down from a common ancestor.
14
Vocabulary - polyphyletic taxa
Polyphyletic taxa contain organisms that have homoplasies: traits shared by different
lineages but not present in their common ancestor.
From a genealogical perspective, polyphyletic taxa are aggregates of independently
working processes.
For the evolutionary taxonomists, polyphyletic taxa are not natural taxa and should be
excluded from classification.
A major task of evolutionary taxonomists has been to remove polyphyletic taxa from earlier
classifications.
For evolutionary taxonomists, the taxon Aves is an example of a portion of a lineage
entering a new adaptive zone and acquiring a new suite of adaptations. They call such
lineages “grades.” According (grades) to know whether a character is a homology
rather than a homoplasy requires knowing the genealogy of the taxa in question.
15
The three general approaches to species (explanatory models).
Interbreeding (reproductive) approach
Ecological approach
Ehrlich and Raven 1969,Van Valen 1976 [1992], Andersson (1990):
environmental rather than reproductive factors are primarily responsible for
the stability of species. They cite numerous examples that, they argue, illustrate
the primacy of selection over interbreeding in maintaining species. One set of
examples highlights species consisting of geographically isolated populations that
do not exchange genetic material. Those species nevertheless remain ecologically,
genetically, and morphologically distinct
Phylogenetic approach
Mayr’s (1970) biological species concept and Paterson’s (1985) mate recognition
concept. According to these concepts, species are groups of organisms that
interbreed and produce fertile offspring. A species’ stability is due to
interbreeding among its members.
Hennig believes that descent from a common ancestor – the bare bones of
genealogical evolution – is the primary process responsible for the existence of
taxa. Accordingly, Hennig argues that classifications should highlight only those
groups that are the result of common descent. Taxa should be “monophyletic.”
All three assume that species are lineages.
16
Classification method – essentialist attempts
Linnaeus in 1758: Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, and finally a Species. This classification system
is based largely on the animal's physical characteristics.
Linnaeus used the method of logical division as the foundation for his method of classification. An organic species is
distinguished by its differentia from the other species in its genus (1731[1938], sec. 257). Yet the “real distinction,” or
essence, of a species cannot be given without the definition of its genus (1731[1938], sec. 256).
Okasha’s (2002) essences are relational rather than intrinsic properties. LaPorte (2004) and Griffiths (1999),
essences are certain ancestor-descendant relationships.
Sober (1980) suggests that Kripke’s argument for origin essentialism might be extended to biological species.
Ideal morphologists, CreationistsH
Essencialism?
Non-gradualism; species are discrete entities (theory of punctuated equilibria), not continual; Essentialism
requires sharp boundaries and precise essences; yet speciation is often a vague process in which no set of
traits marks a species’ boundary. Consequently, species essentialism is at odds with how speciation often occurs.
Problem - absence of causes. Problem with explaining their evoulution and transformations and explaining their
causes.
Kinds with different pasts could have the same essence! (GMO, artificial viruses, etc.)
Neither Linnaeus nor Ideal morphologists were strict essentialists: the standards that Linnaeus placed on
knowing the essences of genera or species are hard to meet. Linnaeus was well aware of this problem (Cain
1959a, 159–60; Larson 1971, 148ff.; Atran 1990, 174–5). He often lacked representatives of all the species of a
genus and thus was unable to determine the unique fructification system of a genus.
Vague essences? Sober’s solution to essentialism (1980 [1992], 252ff.): the vagueness of speciation events is not
fatal for essentialism. He suggests that essentialism is consistent with vague boundaries so long as essences are
correspondingly vague.
How many “essential essences”?
Polemics about natural kinds
Briant, 2001, 89ff (debate over Realism): Putnam vs. Donellan – one important propriety vs. more important
proprieties; should we define natural kinds on the basis of their surface features or should we define them on the
basis of some kind of essential, inner or microstructural properties?
D. H. Mellor: scientists concentrate on microstructural properties (it explains development of biological
classifications)
17
Main approaches
Cluster analysis
Evolutipnary taxonomist (Darwinian classification):
All forms of cluster analysis make two common assumptions: the members of a taxonomic group must share
a cluster of similar traits, and those traits need not occur in all and only the members of a group. Hempel
advocates a cluster approach to classification.
Causal connections: Homo sapiens to be a particular genealogical chunk causally connected on the tree of
life. all historical entities consist of objects that are causally connected over time.
taxa (and so species) are historical (individual) entities;
monophyletic and paraphyletic taxa but not polyphyletic taxa should be classified.
Pheneticism (taximetrics) – “any similarity” (matrix of ressemblance) maximum likelihood
method; phenogram; many trees (phenetic trees); own species concept;
Pheneticists (Sneath and Sokal 1973) recommend constructing classifications according to those groups of
organisms with the most overall similarity. Taxonomic units, in other words, should be groups of entities
that share a large number of common properties.
study of relationships among a group of organisms on the basis of the degree of similarity between them,
be that similarity molecular, phenotypic, or anatomical.
Independent of any theoretical assumptions concerning evolutionary relations
No character is preferred over another, and as many characters are recorded as possible.
The statistical similarities between organisms. Classifications based on only several characteristics may
be biased by the particular nature of those characteristics. For example, a classification based on
immunoglobulin concentration would probably differ from one based on body length (Ridley 1986, 38–9).To
avoid the idiosyncrasies of particular characters, pheneticists recommend performing phenetic studies
involving dozens if not hundreds of characteristics.
species groups in a matrix of resemblances between species.
biological classifications should be made independent of any theoretical assumptions concerning
evolutionary relations (against the ideal morphology) (many theories approach?).
Algorithms for cladograms: (Unweighted Pair Group Method with Arithmetic Mean) a simple agglomerative (bottom-up)
hierarchical clustering method) include least squares, neighbor-joining, parsimony, maximum likelihood, and
Bayesian inference.
18
Main approaches
Cladism (only phylogenetic features; morphological data; cladogram)
Cladistic desire: classification reflect recency of common ancestry
a cladogram refers to the topology of a rooted phylogenetic tree (mostly DNA).
ignores similarities (reject the existence of paraphyletic taxa – e.g. Reptilia);
primary relations are causal (genealogical & embriological);
only monophyletic taxa reflects common ancestry
A) Pattern cladism (o “transformed cladism”):
As the theory of cladistics has developed, it has been realized that more and more of the evolutionary
framework is inessential, and may be dropped. . . . Platnick refers to the new theory as “transformed
cladistics” and the transformation is away from a dependence on evolutionary theory (Patterson 1980 [1982,
118])
B) Process cladism (against the ideal morphology) (many-theories approach).
Hennig (1965, 1966) considers two contending systems of classification: one based on phylogeny and the
other stemming from ideal morphology. Ideal morphologists see no need to know anything about the
evolutionary history of the organisms under study.
Hennig writes that ideal morphologists mistakenly believe that we can construct scientific
classifications without making any theoretical assumptions about evolutionary relations (1966, 8, 11–
12)
Hennig: ideal morphologists wrongly assume that the primary relations among organisms are similarity
relations. Alternatively, Hennig suggests that the primary relations among organisms are causal ones
such as genealogical and embryological relations (1966, 12).
Both evolutionary taxonomists and process cladists believe that process assumptions concerning
evolution are essential for constructing classifications.
Pheneticists and pattern cladists, on the other hand, argue that such assumptions are not essential.
Moreover, they contend that the principles of taxonomy should be void of such assumptions.
19
Sokal, 1963
Pheneticism (taximetrics)
20
Classificaton
development
Linnaeus and the two kingdoms of life.
Haeckel and the three kingdoms.
Whittaker (1969) Two empires and four
kingdoms
Carl Woese (1977) and the three domains.
21
Haeckel’s
tree
22
New cladogram of
Homo sapiens
23
New cladogram of Homo sapiens
The Hominoid tree (family = Hominidae) has been revised several times in the last 25
years.
The modern classification is based on genetic research which shows chimps and bonobos
more closely related to humans (98% of DNA shared) than to gorillas or orangutans (97%
of DNA shared). Recent proposals have put chimps in the Homo genus with humans.
Another gene product that differs between the two species is the protein FoxP2. FoxP2 is a
transcription factor. Rare humans with only one copy of the gene (FOXP2) have severe
language defects.
One gene product that is different between the two species is a protein designated myosin
heavy chain16 (MYH16). In the 25 March 2004 issue of Nature, Stedman et al report; the
MYH16 gene is expressed almost exclusively in their jaw muscles where it transcribed and
translated to produce one form of myosin that is used in the thick filaments of their jaw
muscle fibers.
DNA: the chimpanzee has an extra chromosome 24 instead of 23 in humans or a 4%
difference. But the human chromosome 2 is a combination of 2 chimp chromosomes with
most of the same genes.
Some reports say there is a 4-5% difference between humans and chimps, but the most
common number used is 1.2%.
Amino Acid Sequence of hemoglobin: To compare differences in species is to look at
the number of amino acids that differ from a human hemoglobin chain with 146 acids.
Gorilla - 1, Rhesus monkey - 8, Mouse - 27, Chicken - 45, Frog - 67.
24
Rekapitulácia
Klasifikácia (resp. taxonómia)
Systematizácia
Hľadanie vzorov, ktoré sú zastúpené v klasifikácii
Typológia
Klasifikácia má pevný teoretický a empirický základ
Klasifikácia je aj spôsob (resp. systematizácia) aj výsledok organizácie poznania (dát) podľa
závislosti medzi elementmi
Nadväznosť medzi elementmi je evidentná a komplexná závislosť (umožňujúca systematizáciu)
Klasifikácia umožňuje rozšírenie poznania (vysvetlenie, predvídanie a falzifikáciu)
Teoretický základ klasifikácie (najčastejšie) predpokladá kauzálnu závislosť (buď cez priamu
klasifikačnú teóriu alebo cez vedľajšie disciplíny)
(Mellor – rezolúcia pozorovania určuje základ a vlastnosti klasifikácie)
Typ sa (väčšinou) chápe ako monotetická klasa, ktorá obsahuje jednu vlastnosť a typológia je
konceptuálny spôsob organizácie poznania (triedenia empirických údajov alebo udalostí) s ohľadom
na určený typ (alebo konečný, redukovaný, počet) vlastností
Typ nemusí byť reprezentačnou vlastnosťou predmetu skúmania
môže umožniť rozšírenie poznania a viesť k jemnejšej štruktúre organizácie poznania
V spoločenských disciplínach má obmedzené explanačno-prediktívne vlastnosti
Závislosť medzi elementmi nie je explicitná a nemusí byť vždy transparentná
Nedorozumenia často vznikajú aj tým, že klasifikácia a typológia môžu koincidovať a mať
porovnateľnú štruktúru, ale nie sú identické s ohľadom na spôsob organizácie poznania
Napr. na Mendelejevov periodický systém elementov sa dá pozerať aj ako na typológiu (monotetická
klasa: /názov elementu X atómové číslo/) aj ako na klasifikáciu (pevná a systematizovaná závislosť
medzi elementmi).
25
Teória a slovník
(+ princípy a obmedzenia)
Definícia
Klasifikácia / taxonómia / typológia
systematizácia
26
Literatúra (výber):
Adams & Adams - Archaeological Typology and Practical Reality, A Dialectical Approach to Artifact Classification
and Sorting - Cambridge University Press (1991)
Adams, Classification and Typology, Encyclopedia of Life Support Systems (EOLSS), Archeology vol. 1.
Bailey, Kenneth D. - Typologies and Taxonomies, An Introduction to Classification Techniques (Quantitative
Applications in the Social Sciences), 1994
Baldwin J.T. (ed.), Classification Theory, 1988.
Bryant, Rebecca - Discovery and Decision - Exploring the Metaphysics and Epistemology of Scientific
Classification, 2001
Cohen, Morris R. and Ernest. Nagel. An Introduction to Logic and Scientific Method. By New York, Harcourt Brace,
1934
Ereshefsky, Marc. - The poverty of the Linnaean hierarchy, a philosophical study of biological taxonomy Cambridge Univercity Press (2004)
Hempel, C.G. -P. Oppenheim, Der Typusbegriff im Lichte der neuen Logik Leiden, 1936. (článok v jeho
AspectsH)
Gould, J.S, Wonderful Life: The Burgess Shale and the Nature of History, 1990
Hull, D. L. (1998). Taxonomy. in: Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Version 1.0, London: Routledge.
Lazersfeld, P.F., “Philosophy of Science and Empirical Social Research”, in Nagel-P. Suppes-A. Tarski, Logic,
Methodology and Philosophy of Science, Proceeding of the 1960 International Congress, Stanford University
Press, 1962, pp. 463-473.
Okasha, S., Darwinian Metaphysics: Species And The Question Of Essentialism, Synthese, 131, 2002, pp. 191213
Sivarajan V. V., N. K. P. Robson – Introduction to the Principles of Plant Taxonomy, 1991
Sokal, Robert R, Principles of numerical taxonomy 1963
Sneath, Peter H. A. Numerical Taxonomy: The Principles and Practice of Numerical Classification 1973
Szostak, Rick - Classifying Science, Phenomena, Data, Theory, Method, Practice, Springer Netherlands (2004)
Wolf, K.H. (Eds.), Classifications and Historical Studies, Elsevier (1976)
27
Ďakujem za trpezlivú pozornosť
28